(Note: Turn on your computer sound. There is an .mp3 file link in this post.)
Comments added to one of yesterday’s OpenCdA.com posts raised two issues: (1) Does the Coeur d’Alene City Council use its meeting agenda Consent Calendar to “bury” items worthy of public discussion, and (2) Does the Coeur d’Alene City Council conduct business in violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law?
The answer to both questions is an unqualified “Yes.”
As Mary noted in her post (linked above), the City Council’s own agenda states:
CONSENT CALENDAR: Being considered routine by the City Council, these items will be enacted by one motion unless requested by a Councilman or a citizen that one or more items be removed for later discussion.
On November 7, 2006, I appeared before the City Council and during public comments requested an item on that meeting’s Consent Calendar be removed for discussion. (To better understand the predicate, read my Whitecaps post titled Explosions Shake Coeur d’Alene Place Home.) Councilmembers Kennedy, McEvers, Hassell, Reid, and Goodlander (Edinger absent) voted to ignore my request and approve the Consent Calendar. That approval included ratifying the outcome of a Council meeting conducted in violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law.
Then-Councilmember Dixie Reid tried to rationalize what they had done. It may help to follow the transcript in the linked Whitecaps post while you listen to In her own words…
Her own words are an admission the Coeur d’Alene City Council:
-
Conducted a meeting without proper public notice and without giving the public an opportunity to attend and witness the Council’s deliberation and vote
-
Conducted a vote over the telephone and voted to issue a permit to a contractor
-
Failed to keep and record any minutes of the meeting
-
Failed to record the motion, second, and vote on the permit
-
Tried to make the illegal meeting’s action legal by “ratifying” it in the Consent Calendar at the later meeting
-
Knew it was violating the Idaho Open Meeting Law
-
Failed to require the contractor to obtain the correct permit required by City Ordinance, a permit which would have required more stringent safety measures
Given the Coeur d’Alene City Council’s demonstrated willingness to violate its own ordinance and the state law on what some might call a relatively minor matter, shouldn’t we be concerned that on some matters involving millions of dollars to them, their friends and family and their business associates, the Council might be even more willing to violate the law on matters of consequence? I think we should.
Ain’t Dixie something? Makes you wonder when else they hold meetings over the phone?
Comment by Dan — July 3, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Dixie said:We don’t vote over the phone but,the majority of the council said yes.Is there a difference between reaching a consensus among council members on the phone or determining an opinion through a vote? It’s nearly the same thing IMO.
The Lake City fireworks permit was issued, before it was ratified or given public comment.Unbelieveable.
At least Dixie,retired from the city
council.
Comment by kageman — July 3, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
>The Lake City fireworks permit was issued, before it was ratified or given public comment.Unbelieveable.
Outrageous! This issue absolutely should have been tabled until the next council meeting.
Comment by conspirasseur — July 3, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Kageman,
No, there’s no difference at all unless you’re trying to defend an indefensible action by parsing words.
The urgency Reid implied in the audio clip was nonexistent. The permit applications that were submitted were dated October 13, 2006, 20 days before the scheduled event.
And the ordinance the City failed to enforce, the one requiring a blasting permit for the use of any explosives inside the City? It was authored by none other than Mike Kennedy who sat obediently quiet during Dixie’s tiptoeing through the minefield and then voted in favor of the Consent Calendar.
Now you better understand why I’ve come to refer to Coeur d’Alene as the “City of Expedience.”
Comment by Bill — July 3, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
conspirasseur,
Nope, there was no way they’d table it. They wanted that whole thing to disappear quickly, quietly, and without any (further) public attention being drawn to their actions.
That’s the insidious nature of the Consent Calendar with its wording, “Being considered routine by the City Council…” Violating one of its own ordinances and state law is considered routine by the City Council? Most of the stuff in the Consent Calendar is legitimately routine, however when a councilman or a citizen thinks otherwise, it should be removed for discussion. It is a shame that citizens who should be able to trust their Councilmembers must carefully scrutinize meeting agendas and minutes to see what shenanigans are being pulled by the City.
Comment by Bill — July 3, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Unreal but so believeably true.
I remember this incident. Looks like you caught them red-handed. So what’s next? Are they going to get away with it?
A motto around this area is “Whatever you can get away with is okay.” It’s a powerful game and these corrupt peices of low life revel in it.
When you have been betrayed by people you should be able to trust, it is difficult to expect anything but deceit from this area. It becomes normal to watch for it because you know it’s there. You expect it. Making them pay for their obvious disrespect for the law, however is another story because they all play the game together. It’s not easy fighting this monster.
Mike Kennedy owes the public an explanation and to think I fell for his campaign and voted for him just makes me sick. I want my vote back.
Comment by Stebbijo — July 3, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Stebbijo,
They have gotten away with it. There is an unbelievably short fuse on open meeting law violations complaints. That aside, we have a county prosecutor who never saw an open meeting law violation he wouldn’t decline to prosecute. Even if it had been prosecuted, it is physically impossible to undetonate the explosives. The damage was done. That emphasizes the importance of the Idaho Open Meeting Law — it is supposed to give citizens an opportunity to object before the damage is done. Our Council deprived me and quite a few others of the opportunity to object before the damage was done.
Comment by Bill — July 3, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
It is interesting to hear Dixie stumble when she realizes she almost said,”vote” then assembled some other words to convey they did, in fact, vote on the phone. In the bigger view the episode makes it obvious the council routinely huddles outside the council chambers. How else can there be no debate or questioning among themselves during couincil meetings. Let them deny it in the presence of this audio. The Open Meeting law will grab them sooner or later.
Comment by Gary Ingram — July 3, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
bill wrote: “The damage was done.” what damage? did i miss something?
Comment by reagan — July 3, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
It’s the process here that’s the point, not the topic they were ratifying. They allowed an event to happen by giving their telephone approval, which we all realize is the same as a vote. By doing so, they violated proper and transparent process, and Dixie’s words clearly show it.
The question is, if they are willing to set aside rules and procedure for one item, would they do it for another?
Comment by mary — July 3, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
reagan,
Yes, you did miss something.
Comment by Bill — July 4, 2008 @ 6:59 am
Gary,
I wish we could post the video from the DVD I purchased from the City. Her facial expressions were very revealing. The problem we’re having is technical, not legal, and has to do with the way DVDs are recorded. We’re trying to find an easy and inexpensive way to record the Woody TV public meeting broadcasts so they can be replayed on either a DVR or a computer.
Comment by Bill — July 4, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Mary,
Yes, they would. It bothers me that during the last councilmaniac campaign, both Hassell and Edinger vehemently denied the City does the public’s business behind closed doors. They have rationalized dishonest behavior as being appropriate for public officials.
Comment by Bill — July 4, 2008 @ 7:07 am
Nothing to see, move on, look away. It is the 4th of July, hardly the time to worry about abuses in government, right?
http://constitution.org/us_doi.txt
Comment by Pariah — July 4, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Pariah,
I have moderated your last comment, The Fate of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Please repost it with a hyperlink rather than putting up a very long cut-and-paste. Thanks.
Bill
Comment by Bill — July 4, 2008 @ 8:43 am
“The Americans Who Risked Everything”
by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.
Comment by Pariah — July 4, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Pariah, I pulled your patriotic tribute up to the top. It needs to be center stage today! Thanks for sending it.
Comment by mary — July 4, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Thanks Bill, thanks Mary. Happy Independence Day all!
Comment by Pariah — July 4, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Here’s the video of Dixie saying that they voted but they didn’t vote. I’m working on doing videos for OpenCdA, so if anyone has any feedback on this, let me know.
Comment by Dan — July 4, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Dan, excellent job on the video!
Comment by mary — July 4, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Even though I have a few players,I can’t play the video,for some reason?
I’m not a computer whiz either.
Comment by kageman — July 4, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
kageman,
The video file requires Apple QuickTime in your computer. If you don’t have it already, you can download it for free here.
Once you’ve downloaded it, it may not automatically play the file when you click on the file link. If it doesn’t (mine didn’t), then copy the video file link to your clip board, open QuickTime as a separate program, and paste the video file URL from your clipboard into the blank for open URL.
The quality is okay, but I suspect Dan will try to improve our video capability even more.
Comment by Bill — July 4, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
I believe this indicates a pattern of behavior for the council.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 5, 2008 @ 7:50 am